'By Our Fruits, You'll Know Us': The Mises Caucus Mastermind
"[Libertarians] need to push forward our own culture, our own vision, our own language, our own narrative" and change "the way people think," says Mises Caucus founder Michael Heise.
HD Download"The foundation of our strategy is nullification and decentralization," says Michael Heise, founder of the Mises Caucus and the leading strategist behind the group's takeover of the Libertarian Party at its 2022 convention in Reno, Nevada.
The caucus fashions itself as the Ron Paul movement 2.0, with a message focused on ending wars, ending the Federal Reserve, and ending what it calls the "COVID regime."
Heise formed the Mises Caucus after the 2016 presidential run of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.
"Gary Johnson: 4.3 million votes, highest vote total ever. [But he created] no lasting movement, no return on investment on those votes," says Heise.
Heise won the backing of influential libertarian podcasters Tom Woods and Dave Smith and began the methodical work of getting his allies into leadership positions in the majority of Libertarian Party state affiliates. By 2022, the Mises Caucus controlled 37 state delegations. With that control, Mises Caucus–endorsed candidates swept the national party's entire leadership slate at the convention, which means that big changes are coming to the Libertarian Party.
Reason sat down with Heise to talk about the party's new strategy, how to measure success, and his response to critics who say that the Mises Caucus is damaging the party and the wider libertarian movement.
Produced by Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller; edited by Adam Czarnecki; sound editing by John Osterhoudt; additional graphics by Regan Taylor
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"no lasting movement, no return on investment on those votes"
We talked about this on the previous thread. This is the piece that must be stressed. Johnson/Weld got a massive vote total in a great election year for 3rd parties. And within 4 years they were down to half that amount. If party leadership should be cheered for their success in 2016, they must be held accountable for the utter collapse in support in 2020.
Because everyone who was reluctant to vote for Trump in 2016 saw what an actual decent job he was doing by 2020, Mean Tweets and Precious Norms aside
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going this article.
.
>>>> http://oldprofits.blogspot.com
Talking to folks, Biden also seemed a more acceptable opposition candidate to many folks than Hillary. It's not clear to me how Biden developed a reputation of honesty or whatever virtues were claimed to him, but even then I still find it easy to view him as better than Hillary.
We should enshrine in the halls of history just how bad of a candidate Hillary was. We must never forget.
What did it was hiding in the basement and having corporate media in his pocket, who worked hard to create this image.
Sadly, propaganda and mass communications work and can turn a habitually lying psychopath and incompetent senile authoritarian into a mainstream, moderate candidate.
"...but even then I still find it easy to view him as better than Hillary."
Or Hitler. Or Stalin. Or Mao.
Help me here; running out of candidates worse than Hillary...
Hitler probably ran a better campaign than Hillary did and, I'm guessing, found a way to connect with the average voter in a way that Hillary could not.
Hitler was able to manipulate the German leadership into believing that it was safer to bring him inside the system than to have him on the outside. They underestimated him.
Like connecting batons to skulls, bullets to bodies, train routes to death camps, Cyanide from Zyklon-B to lungs...?
Hillary was famous enough that people knew she had bodies buried in her closet. Many, many bodies. Biden is just milquetost white guy politician that has managed to blend in for people who don't live in Delware.
A blast from the past:
https://twitter.com/JimmyPrinceton/status/1528559511203729408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1528559511203729408%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmoonbattery.com%2F
Good times.
“It's not clear to me how Biden developed a reputation of honesty or whatever virtues were claimed to him”
It’s called propaganda, and Reason did their part.
He's still orders of magnitude better than Trump. I'm not a Biden fan, but that's indisputable.
He's still orders of magnitude better than Trump. I'm not a Biden fan, but that's indisputable.
Is it, though?
If you're suffering from TDS, it's quite clear that Biden is better. It's not about results or policy, but FEELINGS. Despite the charlie foxtrot that is our nation today, i guarantee progressives and TDS victims don't change their mind one bit.
Leftist NPCs aren't really capable of thinking, they just run their lines then space out.
Trump's probably the cleanest, most honest president since at least Carter.
In personality or policy?
Lolwut?
'I'm not a Biden fan.' All evidence to the contrary aside, that is.
"He's still orders of magnitude better than Trump..."
Stuff your TDS up your ass; your head is asking for company, shit-pile.
“orders of magnitude”
Someone doesn’t know what “orders of magnitude” means.
There is also the perennial cluelessness. Johnson got roasted about Allepo but I could excuse that somewhat as libertarian dissociation with foreign wars and the thought that it's all bad and why should one city on one entanglement be important beyond that. Then jo goes out and throws her support behind BLM, despite the marxist roots of the organization, and totally dismisses the rioting and violence they were causing, no thanks I'll vote for Kamala before I vote for someone that clueless domestically.
And she didn't just endorse BLM, she used and promoted an explicitly marxist perspective
Maybe Jo has a thing for them black fellers.
Or because in 2016 the LP ran the best qualified (successful 2-term governor) and least objectionable candidate (compared to Trump/Clinton), and in 2020 they ran a complete unknown with no governing experience.
Or because in 2016 the LP ran the best qualified (successful 2-term governor) and least objectionable candidate (compared to Trump/Clinton), and in 2020 they ran a complete unknown with no governing experience
^
And not that GJ was any kind of lightning rod, but the lack of charisma in JoJo was a noticeable liability. Soft spoken and not at all good on her feet.
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (fhg-06) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career &
can gain more dollars online going this article.......... http://payout11.tk
i liked Jo, personally... but i gotta say that is accurate. even the BLM thing could have been an asset if it had been framed more on our principles (end the war or drugs, demilitarize police, stop going after people for victimless crimes, etc.) instead of trying to sound nice. she came across as very nice.... and people are not too interested in nice these days. (i don't think you have to be a jerk, just that being nice does not gain you much.)
Raises hand.
"Because everyone who was reluctant to vote for Trump in 2016 saw what an actual decent job he was doing by 2020"
What alternate reality did you come from? He was a shitshow from start to finish. He can only be represented favorably when he is compared to Biden who's major failures, like trumps, come form continuing the policies of their predecessor.
Just because Biden is a horrible president doesn't mean that Trump wasn't also a horrible president.
Trump: no NEW wars
repealed 2 regs for every new one passed
out of Paris tax ("climate") accord
totally pissed off and made incoherent the far left.
Meh, he's pretty ok.
And I would argue that Johnson/Weld only got historic votes because it was Trump vs Hillary. In 2016, I held a rather conventional view on Trump and an extremely intelligent and well-formed opinion of Hillary. There was no fucking way Hillary would ever get my vote and I would do just about anything to keep her away from the levers of power. Trump on the other hand seemed like a crazy carnival barker who I just couldn't see as president. So why not this kooky libertarian candidate? *votes for Johnson*
Then 2016-2020 happened.
Same here. Exactly.
Also, I think that Johnson/Weld did a better job of getting the word out - I at least saw some of their campaign videos and checked out their website. I didn't hear a peep from Jo Jorgensen.
Johnson polled as high as 8% early on, and was included in the major polls, since Dems thought he would take votes away from Trump.
Jorgensen was rarely even mentioned in the news media.
Frankly, the fact that he started at 8% and dwindled to 3% tells me definitively that he was a lousy candidate. If you start out as a minor party candidate with 8% support, if you're a good candidate, you build from that. If you're dwindling, it means you gave those 5% a reason not to vote for you.
Early polling tells us very little in general. That 8% support likely never existed.
Agreed. I don't believe the 8%.
If you're dwindling, it means you gave those 5% a reason not to vote for you.
Meh - I think a big part of it was the psychology that both major parties have been exploiting for a while, which is that the two major-party candidates were so horrible that rather than even consider voting for a third-party candidate people got the idea that they had to vote for the less shitty of the two shitty major candidates to keep the other one from winning.
That, and fairly or unfairly (I think the latter) the Aleppo thing really hurt Johnson, but as I said at the time, if he had never gaffed on anything, the media would never have mentioned him at all. The fact this is the one gotcha moment they were able to latch onto IMHO speaks pretty well of him, actually.
Johnson and Weld did their share to turn off their actual base. If your endorsing compelled servitude because you like the view being compelled you're not keeping many libertarians or liberty minded people.
100%, actual Libertarian magazine, Reason.com website ran 100x more articles about TRUMP!!! than about the Libertarian candidate. When your own team is helping, hard to get the word out.
This was my vote. For 30 years, I had voted for the "lesser evil" of the two major-party presidential candidates. Then came 2016 and I couldn't make myself vote for either.
I figured it was a good time to vote Libertarian (in spite of Johnson's stupid stance on Masterpiece bakery).
Then the Demoncrats went insane. I still disliked Trump, but the Democrats scared me enough to overcome my dislike and I voted for him in 2020.
I don't know what I'll do in 2024, but I won't vote Libertarian out of mere protest. They'll have to offer something attractive to get my vote.
It’ll most likely be Dave Smith. I’ve pimped his Part of the Problem podcast here a few times. He’s a breath of fresh air compared to Reason.
I like his podcast as well.
I don't know Smith but whatever they're going to do they need to start laying the groundwork soon. Waiting to play the game on the same terms as the duopoly is pure folly.
They need a couple of potential candidates rising in stature on the national stage. Preferably a few who could counter the perception of "Libertarian? You mean the potheads or Republican-Lite?".
Same.
agreed.
we got more votes in 2016 because nobody liked who was running.... by 2020, too many people were terrified of the "other person" winning to "risk" voting 3rd party.
If you're only capable of comprehending simplistic preprogrammed talking points, sure.
But in reality Trump's performance inspired a great many people to vote for him that previously didn't (at least 20% more votes in 2020 than 2016, and Biden didn't inspire nearly the antipathy Hillary did), especially among blacks and Hispanics.
But in reality Trump's performance inspired a great many people to vote for him that previously didn't (at least 20% more votes in 2020 than 2016, and Biden didn't inspire nearly the antipathy Hillary did), especially among blacks and Hispanics.
I think this is roughly correct - I thought better of Trump in 2020 than I did in 2016, and as deeply as I loathe Joe Biden, I don't think he's as actually dangerous as Hillary. I knew a lot of long time Democrats who could not bring themselves to vote for her, but Biden seems to have been . . . acceptable to most.
talk about simplistic....
anyone being honest can say that Trump did some things that were good and others that were awful.
Biden sucked, but benefited from the reality of the time that kept his gaff machine in his basement...
at the end of the day, most people were voting against something more than they were voting for something. anyone who thinks otherwise is just drinking the propaganda.
you are someone who thinks they are a libertarian who likes Trump.... noted...
at the end of the day, most people were voting against something more than they were voting for something. anyone who thinks otherwise is just drinking the propaganda.
LOL
I've never claimed to be libertarian, unlike your fat, lying, totalitarian leftist ass.
You're a stock NPC trying to both sides your way out of a shallow, uninsightful talking point. "Your" opinion is literally the company line here (aka propaganda).
At least 11 million more people voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016. For your thesis to be plausible, the 2020 opponent would have to be less palatable than his 2016 opponent.
Go ahead, make the case that Biden (who barely campaigned) inspired greater opposition than Hillary (whose numbers dropped wherever she campaigned).
We're all ears.
you really are trying hard to amuse me, aren't you? claiming i am am spreading propaganda as you literally post pro trump talking points.... you are such a joke.
i didn't vote for Biden... i didn't vote for Hillary.... i have never said anything supporting either of them.... take your talking points and shove them up your ass.
"Biden (who barely campaigned) inspired greater opposition than Hillary"
So, the inference there is that Trump inspired that opposition...
You don't understand what you're reading.
You and your fatass friend can take your leftist hivemind stupidity elsewhere.
"Trump's performance inspired a great many people to vote for him that previously didn't "
I think this is detached from reality. What people liked wasn't his policies or performance but rather the apoplectic fit he generated in Democrats and other politicians. If you talk to Trump supporters only 1 in 10 could give you a policy summary beyond the level of a misquoted headline. The rest are generally just diehard partisans.
DingDingDingDingDingDingDingDingDingDingDingDing DingDingDingDingDingDingDingDingDingDingDingDing
Winner!! Winner!! Chicken Dinner!!!!!
JoJo still beat the the vote totals of all candidates prior to GaJo.
And don't forget, the 2020 election was NOT about ideas or governance, it was all about voting partisan. Have to vote Democrat to keep Trump out! Have to vote Republican to keep Trump in! That was the constant drumbeat. No one gave a shit anything other than voting for or against Trump. That explains a helluva lot about the vote dip. And still that vote dip was higher than Paul/88.
JoJo still beat the the vote totals of all candidates prior to GaJo.
The preferred nomenclature was "GayJay".
the 2020 election was NOT about ideas or governance, it was all about voting partisan.
This is very true. As intellectually bankrupt as the electoral process tends to be, the 2020 election reached new levels of 'content free' campaigning.
Explain what you mean by this.
Biden not campaigning but still having truckloads of untraceable votes show up after the GOP observers were kicked out. You know, "cleanest election ever" much like the peaceful protests of summer 2020.
There was no real ideological content on either side - just "other guy bad." 2016 was about the same, in fairness - it's been some time since campaigns have had anything to do with principles and plans - it's all principals and signaling.
Did Trump not run on his record, deregulation, prioritizing Americans, opposition to socialism?
For that matter, Biden's campaign, while mostly focused on "not Trump", did promote destroying the fossil fuel industry and increasing international government.
Did Trump not run on his record, deregulation, prioritizing Americans, opposition to socialism?
The first two not so much, and the second two in the end boil down to "other guy bad."
For that matter, Biden's campaign . . . did promote destroying the fossil fuel industry and increasing international government.
If you went and read his website.
The LP needs to focus on one issue, stopping government from initiating force, anything else is a waste of time, energy and money.
Anarchy ain't in the cards.
Anarchy means without rulers government prohibited from initiating force could not rule it could only do its job which is to defend liberty. It would be an anarchy with a government.
Yeah, but voters don't care.
Voters may care about how the arms manufacturers are looting from us through taxation and inflation, but they don't care about tan people being blown up.
We're blowing up the wrong brown people. We need to declare war on the Mexican crime lords.
Man, Michael Heise really stammered when he got to the part about why he wanted the anti-bigotry statement removed. Basically because it's the type of thing that "cultural Marxists" and "wokists" would say. So he says it's just "virtue signaling" to condemn bigotry, but he wants to do some virtue signaling of his own to make sure we all know that sending a signal that he's opposed to wokism is more important than condemning bigotry.
If bigotry deserves to be condemned, then do it, regardless of what everyone else says about it. Don't let everyone else define one's own values and principles.
I'm less upset by it, since it appears rather than a negative assertion against bigotry it was turned into a positive position about individualism. I wouldn't really have been bothered by having both in there, but I'm not in the party. So, my opinion is basically worthless.
That's downright libertarian!
It isn't the job of the LP to "condemn bigotry", for starters because lots of people disagree on what constitutes "bigotry".
It's not unreasonable. Party planks are pretty high-level anyway oftentimes. I can condemn racism, a term most people reasonably understand. I can also condemn the evolution of the term racism to how a lot of Woke folks use it today. I don't blame people for attempting to avoid the term entirely though and instead speak specifically about what they mean.
Same with bigotry. I feel pretty easy about condemning it, I think almost all Americans would. If they feel that it's gotten coopted in certain circles who attempt to apply it to any disparity in any two groups then it's reasonable to just avoid it too and say what you mean.
I feel like I wrote a lot of run-ons there.
Is racism just prejudice or is it prejudice+power?
In any case, from a libertarian point of view, irrational prejudice is taken care of by the market, so what is there for a LP to condemn?
Yeah, same with bigotry: it's an ill-defined term mostly thrown around by progressives as an ad hominem. The correct response for libertarians is not to play along and tell people who use such terms to get lost.
More the prejudice one. I could probably come up with some complicated definition, but it doesn't really matter. It's important to react to people as individuals. I think it's important to draw the line between fast and slow thinking on it as well. Or, at the very least, it's very important to have grace when making this distinction. So, a person being afraid of running into a group of teenagers in an alley at night is prejudiced, but it's relatively inconsequential, probably on a cost/benefit analysis is reasonable, and having some grace and understanding towards the individual makes the world better. Whatever, all I do is ramble. I think Ken Smith disappearing led me to filling a vacuum or something.
Bigotry is just a generalization of racism in many ways. And, as you said, has become an overloaded concept now. Particularly as racism and bigotry have become an all encompassing way of explaining outcomes to certain folks. I do think that is what Critical Legal Theory was/is, and it's not entirely empty to say that legal regimes can have unintended consequences (I think libertarians would feel comfortable with that) the extension of the term racism to describe it has weakened the value of the term.
Well, that's your opinion. But the people who call for a condemnation of bigotry disagree.
That is not for the LP or the state to determine. As far as libertarianism is concerned, men's only clubs, women's only circles, black fraternities, etc. are all perfectly fine. Likewise, a business hiring only Lithuanian Jews or Huguenots or Somali immigrants is perfectly fine.
You sound positively libertarian!
(Reason writers are very unhappy with you.)
Did you recognize the prejudice + power definition as a self-evident truth of the new religion? Once the left-leaning dimwits who make up academe realized that some of their favorite special interest and grievance groups are horribly racist, actual definition, they began scrambling to change the definition.
The problem with including "condemning bigotry" in your party platform is that it's implicitly endorsing the leftist fiction that traditional bigotry is a major issue. It's not. Traditional anti- gay/women/gay/muslim/etc bigotry has never been less apparent (which is why the woke have to work so hard to find, even outright invent, examples).
The left depends upon identity politics and creating the delusion that nothing has changed over the last half century plus.
When you go out of your way to "condemn bigotry", you're playing identity politics and supporting the left's fictional, destructive agenda.
If you're going to go out of your way to condemn anything, it should be the collectivist delusion that traditional bigotry is some massive problem and the hypersensitivity of being offended at the drop of a hat.
"Man the fuck up" would be a better party platform.
I'm on board with that
I think bigotry and especially racism have lost all meaning. To conservatives they mean what they say in the dictionary. To the left (and in most media media) they seem to mean anything that arbitrarily offends anyone that is not white or an alphabet person. I don't blame anyone for removing those words from their platform.
Full disclosure, I do have some outright old-school racist friends that I haven't condemned even though I disagree.
The party platform is what the party wants to accomplish if it achieves power. Condemning bigotry is not the role of government.
It’s really that simple.
Bigot means intolerant of the opinions of others. I'm a HUGE bigot.
Personally, I hate all stupid people.
Who doesn’t?
Stupid people.
Since the left now asserts expecting employees to show up on time and a focus on improvement are white supremacy pretty much everyone disagrees on what constitutes bigotry. The difference is that Normals think this is nuts and the left will pretend it isn't happening - just as convincingly as when they pretended CRT wasn't being executed in schools.
Well, as you yourself said, libertarianism isn't a moral philosophy.
This is what that looks like.
Sorry if you got what you wanted. If you want a party that affirms a particular moral stance, there are two others out there.
Bingo. The statement was not advocating any law or state invervention. It was just condeming bigotry. But the Mises Caucus can't handle that because they know their base plays footsies with bigots.
When one hears the word "NeoConfederalist" one instantly thinks of the LvMI.
if a party tells me what to think [condemn bigotry!] I'm out anyway. I can condemn bigotry without walking under a tent and feeling inclusion.
Ah, so you're not a member of ANY party. Got it.
As opposed to Brandyshit here, who would NEVER vote for an R or a D, no matter how "L" the proposed policies are.
He's pretty fucking stupid that way.
Eat shit and die, TDS-addled asshole.
Bigotry is the "unreasonable attachment to prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
It is a fundamental tenet of libertarianism that no governmental or political institution can make such a determination. What is an "unreasonable attachment to prejudice" is determined by markets. That is, whether your decision to hire/not hire members of group X is "unreasonable" is determined by your success in the market, nothing else.
In fact, as the Democratic party and progressive movement show, making top down judgments and pronouncements about "bigotry" is the best way of becoming a bigot, since that party isn't just "playing footsie with bigots", the Democratic party is the grand umbrella for bigots and bigotry.
And we saw just a few years ago how official definitions can be radically changed by a sad letter from an activist.
so.... if the democratic party is the grand umbrella for bigots and bigotry........ why does anyone have any problems condemning bigotry?
What do you mean? No libertarian or conservative I know has problems condemning instances of bigotry. We do it all the time.
"No libertarian or conservative I know has problems condemning instances of bigotry."
apparently... you can't even read the things you quote...
Apparently you can’t read.
Libertarians and conservatives are fine with condemning instances of bigotry.
Not bigotry in the abstract.
Well said.
Unsurprisingly, that quote from brandy is biased to the point of bigotry. And displays the typical mind-reading one has come to expect from when encountering bigotry.
Okay. Define bigot. Because "bigot' has been used to describe anything from an unrepentant night-riding Klansman to a guy who isn't interested in having sex with a transsexual. And we know dishonest and corrupt people are all too willing to expand upon and manipulate that definition to pursue their own agendas. So, either come up with a meaningful, universal, definition of bigot, or grease up for a drag queen, bigot!
"because they know their base plays footsies with bigots."
Didn't they get like 80% support? That's an awful lot of "bigots" you're tarring, Brandy.
Also who are these bigots the Mises Caucus is playing "footsie" with and what makes them so? Name some names, Brandybuck. Inferring and implying is for weasels.
Tom Woods.
That's all you got?
How is the Mises Caucus associated with Tom Woods, and how is Woods a bigot? You're taking two big leaps there.
That's Brandyshit, who has spent the last couple of years inventing excuses for his raging case of TDS.
If the L party gets anywhere close to what Trump gave us for 4 years, Brandyshit's head is going to explode.
Eat shit and die, Brandyshit. You OWN Biden.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
They replaced the old statement with one stating they defend and respect everyone's rights regardless of race, ethnicity, or any other aspect of their identity. This is why the leftist commenters are really angry. They can't abide that anyone could support rights unless they are determined by the victim hierarchy. The very idea they could only have the same rights as everyone else is the same as Jim Crow.
Condemning bigotry is a subjective value judgement. The LP should only be concerned with objective values as related to the NAP.
Right. You can be the worst bigot in the world. You can refuse service to people for any bigoted reason. As long as you're not initiating use of force, there's no room for government to be involved. By condemning it, you're saying it's somehow important to the political movement when it's really not.
And if you say you condemn bigotry, you're constantly going to be challenged to condemn this person or that person in order to be consistent, even if you don't see what someone did as bigoted. If you just opt out and say it's not your job to define who is a bigot and what should be done about them, you're much better off.
He went on to say that as long as a bigot doesn't violate the NAP, who fucking cares what they think?
And I agree. Heck, if some racist shop-owner wants to post "Whites Only" in his window, why not? Would you give him your business? No? Well there you go.
The other problem with condemning bigotry, which he discusses, is who gets to define the word. If I refuse to use these new stupid pronouns does that make me a bigot? If a black person refuses to listen to white music are they a bigot?
Everyone thinks bigot is automatically a bad thing. If I'm a bigot against the beliefs of ISIS does that make me a bad person?
Quit confusing the ACLU!
Disagreeing with beliefs is not bigotry. If you had negative feelings against all Syrians because of the beliefs of ISIS, that would be bigotry.
A bigot is intolerant of the opinions of others. I'll never tolerate the opinion that initiating force in the name of your God is acceptable.
"A bigot is intolerant of the opinions of others."
No, that's not what a bigot is.
What the fuck is "white music"?
"What the fuck is "white music"?"
It's music made by the White people of Whiteland, part of the Whitish culture, with lyrics in the Whitic language.
How does a political party condemn bigotry when they can't get more than 10% of the members to agree on any given definition of bigotry?
It just ends with the various LP factions accusing each other of bigotry.
that is an interesting take... and i think i agree. when the fight against virtue signalling becomes virtue signalling.
why does it so often feel like we are caught between to warring tribes in this society that are doing the exact same things and not realizing how similar they are?
Because you're a fundamentally dishonest leftist who disingenuously says things like this to deflect from the left's psychotic totalitarianism.
it amuses me the way you brain dead idiots can't come up with anything more creative that calling someone a 'leftist." somehow, saying that both of the major tribes suck is an endorsement of one of those tribes.....
I'm sorry your comments are so transparent and that I aim directly at your (justified) intellectual insecurity.
i may have lied... it really isn't that amusing... it is more sad just how pathetic you are..... completely incapable of making any reasoned argument, just lame partisan hack insults. i just try to look on the bright side and chuckle at your stupidity.
We make reasoned arguments with people capable of, and interested in, a rational discussion.
You are neither. You are a grandstanding leftist troll and we are simply identifying you as such. That is, calling you a leftist isn’t part of a discussion, it’s telling you to either start making rational arguments or get lost.
Does it deserve to be condemned by a collective or should it just be condemned on an individual basis?
We're not done rehashing this?
Reminds me of the GOP replaying the primaries of 2010-2016.
At any rate, Reason must actually be afraid of the Mises Caucus. They can't stop talking about them.
Eh, reading through their coverage is reasonably mixed on the subject. I think it's just this is the big news to come out of the Libertarian Party. Technically this magazine covers the Libertarian Party, it's just infrequent.
Reason coverage is not mixed. The two by these same two authors are balanced, the others are anti-Mises screeds. There's never a balance to any author who adopts the far left position and style. This style reflects our national media and shows how successful the left takeover of media and academia have been that people think the far left is balanced by the middle of the road.
I'm really interested in some examples of "mixed" coverage. Can you help me out?
There will be a lot of beating of chests and rending of cloth from cafeteria libertarians who think that they can pick and choose their favorite libertarian policies (open borders, unrestricted trade, abortion, etc.) while ignoring the ones they don't like.
Libertarianism is a package deal, and it's a pretty tough deal. Libertarianism replaces government compulsion with market mechanisms, and market mechanisms probably leave you with fewer practical choices than you have under the current progressive system. Libertarianism goes hand in hand with a conservative social structure and strong social pressures to conform to societal norms.
I don't see the US returning to anything like a libertarian society for several generations, and only after a major economic and social meltdown. That's why the whole LP strikes me as a pointless exercise. But I suppose having the Mises caucus in charge at least prevents the LP from being used as another propaganda outlet for progressives, which is what it was before.
I've been reading a book called The Right recently, and it was really interesting to see discussion about the pre-New Deal days of the US. I realize I have so little conception about how fundamentally that changed the US. I really want to read more about it. I think I would love to find a way to return to that.
~~ looks it up
I do not know if it would be well beloved here. As it's about Conservative movement in the US, which juts against libertarianism in many ways, but is distinct.
Though if anyone knows a good history of the New Deal I'd love to read it. I don't know enough about that or the Great Society.
I would recommend two books by Amity Schlaes:
The Forgotten Man
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060936428/reasonmagazinea-20/
Great Society: A New History
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061706426/reasonmagazinea-20/
Can't put my hand on it just now, but memory says she did a book on FDR's depression, offering pretty strong evidence that many of his 'fix it' moves resulted in keeping it going.
Thank you both for the recommendation. I will order both.
Seconded.
The Great Society is a perfect read for right now.
Both available on audible too, if you need to multitask
market mechanisms probably leave you with fewer
practicalchoices than you have under the current progressive systemFIFY. I'll agree that market mechanisms and social conservatism provides fewer options than the current progressive system. I disagree that the simultaneous offerings of #believeallwomen and #evenwomenwithpenises is in any way practical or even intended to be.
I think you misunderstood my comment as an endorsement of progressivism or the maximization of choices. Maximization of individual choices is unachievable; any governmental system with that objective will turn totalitarian and then fail.
The point is that if we want a prosperous, functioning society, a socially conservative libertarian society is pretty much the only choice.
And it's not that political libertarianism creates a libertarian society; it's that socially conservative societies don't need a lot of laws and hence end up being libertarian.
Bingo. People in chaos demand more government.
Book of Judges and 1 Samuel are Exhibit A. Current Society Exhibit B.
Maybe. Plenty of conservative societies have highly proscribed values and behaviors, and even laws. But these are instructed and enforced through parallel institutions like churches. The most restrictive environments might be where so-called secular governments partner directly with religious and other managers of social order.
That's my point: you need "proscribed values and behaviors" in order to have a successful society. The only question is whether those values and behaviors are imposed by the government (conservative government) or by society/culture (libertarianism).
I had the same thought as mad.casual. Thx you for clarifying.
Libertarianism replaces government compulsion with market mechanisms, and market mechanisms probably leave you with fewer practical choices than you have under the current progressive system.
You sure about that? Government crowds out market spending in an inefficient and wasteful way. I think the result would be the opposite. Without government crowding out investment there would be more choices. These other options would adapt and improve rather than stagnate and rot. I think you might be wrong. Or maybe I'm too much of an optimist.
rape metaphor
Gee, Nick, maybe if every time you hear a reference to "getting dick" you hear "rape", the problem is you, rather than the Mises Caucus.
When one's fallback is more akin to andrea dworkin and 'metoo' versus asking what the quote was and for context, then, yes, the problem is very likely not w/ the quote. And, if there was any doubt that nick is not fully simpatico w/ individual liberties, this interview should put that to rest.
'By Our Fruits, You'll Know Us': The Mises Caucus Mastermind
And nuts and flakes too?
And what's this with "Mastermind.?" It makes him sound like Fearless Leader from The Bullwinkle and Rocky Show. Find Moose and Squirrel!" 🙂
How about a system dedicated to minimizing the scope and reach of government and maximizing the people to mind their own business?
Anyone who condemns all forms of discrimination and/or prejudice either does not understand what the words mean or does not understand human nature.
It is a vital part of human nature to "pre-judge" someone or something. The human race would have become extinct thousands of years ago were it not for our developing the ability to make assumptions about a general entity based on prior experience with similar entities. We learn to avoid perceived dangers based on these "pre-judgements".
If it turns out later that our pre-judgements were overly broad or based on faulty assumptions, we modify them. That is what reasoning is, but we don't eliminate our ability to judge simply because we were overly cautious in any particular scenario.
>need to push forward our own culture, our own vision, our own language, our own narrative
Don't you have to have all that stuff before you can push it? Or are sex work and illegal aliens what you consider culture?
Just a thought from the headline:
If you speak your own language, how will others understand you?
"Gary Johnson: 4.3 million votes, highest vote total ever. [But he created] no lasting movement, no return on investment on those votes."
This could have been way, way higher if Johnson had focused on attracting voters from the GOP. Trump in 2016 had more in-party opposition than any Republican candidate since Goldwater in 1964. I'm not suggesting the LP should have compromised principles, just tailor the emphasis: talk up the LP's position on deregulation, gun rights, taxes, school choice, and the like. Instead, they chose to emphasize... what? Marijuana legalization, when the political winds were clearly blowing in that direction anyway regardless of whether you voted LP or not? As if "we'll legalize pot right now" is going to win over more Democrats than "we're going to legalize pot very soon and give you tons of free stuff right now"?
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going
this article... https://www.profit97.com/
Now that the Mises Caucus has had control over the party, there's hardly any members left. The bank account is nearly fully drained. And party leadership is doing more to help the Republican and independent candidates.
It seems the MC fruits were rotten to begin with. They can organize people to a cause, but they can't manage a party without driving it into oblivion.
I'm not sure the LP will be able to recover from this mess financially. At least we didn't endorse Trump, although the chair has numerous times.